Defamation & Spreading False Information Lawyer
Defamation & Spreading False Information Lawyer | What the accused needs to know before the first interview
Defamation in Korea is a criminal offense even when the statement is true, unless it was made for the public interest (형법 제307조 제1항, 제2항). Online statements carry heavier penalties than offline ones under a separate special law (정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률 제70조). Because the complainant can pursue both a criminal complaint and a separate civil claim for damages, the same set of facts often needs to be defended on two fronts at once, and how you frame your statement in the police interview affects both cases.
Defamation & Spreading False Information | What exactly are you being accused of?
Korean law splits defamation into several distinct charges depending on whether the statement was true or false, and whether it was made online. The charge listed in your police summons matters because each carries different elements the prosecution must prove and different defenses available to you.
Even a factually accurate statement can be criminal defamation if it damages someone's reputation and was communicated to others in a way that could spread (publicity requirement). This is the provision most often misunderstood by people who assume 'I only said the truth' is a complete defense. Whether the statement was actually true, and whether it meets the public interest exception, becomes the central issue.
This applies when the statement was untrue and the speaker knew, or should have known, it was false. Penalties are heavier than the true-fact version. The prosecution must prove both falsity and that you had at least some awareness the statement could be false; genuine, reasonable belief in the truth of what you said is a key point to raise.
Statements made on the internet, social media, or messaging apps are prosecuted under this special law rather than the general Criminal Act, with higher maximum penalties for both the true-fact and false-fact versions. Most complaints arising from online comments, reviews, or posts fall under this provision, and courts tend to treat the scale of potential spread (number of viewers, platform reach) as an aggravating factor.
If the statement is an abstract insult or contempt rather than an assertion of a specific fact, it may instead be charged as insult, which has different elements and generally lighter penalties. Distinguishing a 'statement of fact' from a mere 'expression of opinion or abuse' is often the first line of defense.
Semi-official offense: the complaint can still be withdrawn
Defamation and cyber defamation are 반의사불벌죄 (offenses not prosecuted against the victim's will) — if the complainant formally withdraws the complaint before the first-instance judgment, prosecution is barred (형법 제312조 제2항, 정보통신망법 제70조 제3항). This is why many of these cases are resolved through negotiated settlement and a written withdrawal rather than trial.
Defamation & Spreading False Information | The truth and public interest defense
Because even true statements can be criminal, the strongest defense in many cases is not 'it was true' alone but the two-part test for the public interest exception. This defense is available only for the true-fact version of the charge.
The two elements you must establish
Under 형법 제310조, a true statement is not punishable if (1) it concerns a matter of public interest and (2) it was made solely, or predominantly, for that public interest rather than personal malice. Both elements need to be shown; a statement that is factually accurate but was clearly made out of personal spite toward the complainant may still fail this defense.
What counts as 'public interest'
Courts have recognized a broad range of topics as matters of public interest, including consumer warnings about a business, workplace misconduct reports, and commentary on public figures' conduct in their public role. Purely private disputes framed as public warnings are scrutinized closely for whether the public interest claim is genuine or a pretext.
Proving the statement was actually true
The burden practically falls on the defendant to produce objective evidence — documents, messages, receipts, witness statements — supporting the truth of what was said. Vague recollection or 'I heard it from someone' is rarely sufficient, so gathering this evidence before the police interview is one of the most consequential early steps.
Defamation & Spreading False Information | Online posts, reviews, and anonymous accounts
Cases arising from online reviews, community posts, or anonymous social media comments raise their own set of issues around identification, intent, and how the statement is interpreted by an average reader.
Was a specific person actually identifiable?
Defamation requires that the person defamed be identifiable to at least some readers, even if not named outright (특정성). If a post used only a role, initials, or vague description that could not reasonably be linked to the complainant by an ordinary reader, this element can be contested.
Negative reviews versus defamatory statements
A critical review of a product, service, or business is not automatically defamation; the dispute usually turns on whether specific factual claims within the review were false, versus subjective evaluation ('the food was bad', 'service was slow') which is generally treated as opinion. Courts distinguish factual assertions from value judgments, and this line is often where these cases are won or lost.
IP tracing and identifying the account holder
Investigators can request subscriber information from platforms and ISPs once a complaint is filed, so anonymity rarely prevents identification once a formal investigation begins. Deleting a post after receiving a warning does not resolve the case and can sometimes be read as an acknowledgment of wrongdoing, so how and when to respond needs care.
Defamation & Spreading False Information | Handling the parallel civil damages claim
The person who filed the criminal complaint can separately, or simultaneously, file a civil suit for damages based on the same statement. The two proceedings use different standards of proof and settling one does not automatically end the other.
Tort liability under the Civil Act
A defamatory statement can give rise to a claim for damages for infringement of reputation as a tort (민법 제751조), even in situations where the criminal case ends in a non-prosecution decision, because the civil standard of proof is lower than the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard.
Why settlement often covers both cases at once
Because withdrawal of the criminal complaint is possible only before judgment (형법 제312조 제2항), most negotiated settlements are drafted to resolve the civil damages claim and secure the criminal complaint withdrawal in a single agreement, rather than negotiating each separately at different times.
What a settlement amount typically reflects
There is no fixed formula; amounts discussed in practice tend to track the scale of the statement's spread, whether it targeted a private individual or a public figure/business, and whether the statement has already been deleted and an apology offered. Framing a settlement early, before an indictment, generally gives more room for negotiation than after formal charges are filed.
Defamation & Spreading False Information | How a defamation case against you typically proceeds
Before the first police interview, we review the actual statement, screenshots, and any evidence of truth or public interest, and assess whether the charge is properly the true-fact, false-fact, or online version.
How you characterize your intent and the basis for your statement in the first interview shapes the rest of the case; we prepare a written statement and go through likely questions in advance.
Where appropriate, we approach the complainant (through their counsel if represented) to discuss withdrawal of the complaint and settlement of any related civil claim, ideally before the case is referred to prosecution.
The prosecutor may issue a non-prosecution decision, a summary indictment (fine), or a formal indictment for trial, depending on the severity, prior withdrawal, and evidence of a public interest defense.
If the case proceeds to trial, we present the truth/public interest defense or contest the identifiability and intent elements, and address sentencing factors such as prior settlement and deletion of the statement.
Defamation & Spreading False Information | How fees are typically calculated in defamation cases
Generally set based on the stage the case is at when you retain counsel (pre-investigation, post-summons, or post-indictment) and the complexity of the evidence needed to establish the truth or public interest defense.
If negotiating a withdrawal of complaint and civil settlement is part of the engagement, this is usually structured separately from the criminal defense retainer and scoped to the negotiation itself.
Any fee tied to outcome (such as a non-prosecution decision or complaint withdrawal) is agreed in advance in the fee agreement; we do not promise a specific outcome in advance.
Costs such as digital forensic review of posts/messages, document certification, or expert opinions on identifiability are billed separately as incurred.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Defamation & Spreading False Information | Self-Check Before Your Interview
1️⃣ Was your statement actually true?
- Do you have documents, messages, or records that support what you said?
- Can you identify witnesses who can confirm the facts you stated?
- Was any part of your statement based on secondhand information rather than something you directly witnessed?
- Have you kept the original post or recording, rather than only a paraphrase?
2️⃣ Can you show a public interest motive?
- Did your statement relate to a business, public figure, or matter affecting others beyond you personally?
- Was there a personal conflict with the complainant that could be read as the real motive?
- Did you make the statement to warn others, rather than purely to retaliate?
- Was the statement limited to what was necessary, or did it include unnecessary personal attacks?
3️⃣ Online posts and anonymous accounts
- Could an ordinary reader identify the specific person from your post, even without a name?
- Did you delete the post, and if so, when relative to receiving any warning?
- Is the platform account tied to your real identity or a pseudonym?
- Did anyone else share, screenshot, or republish your original post?
4️⃣ Before and during the police interview
- Have you received an official summons, or only informal contact from police?
- Have you prepared a written statement explaining the basis for what you said?
- Are you clear on which specific statement, out of everything you've posted or said, is the subject of the complaint?
- Have you avoided contacting the complainant directly in a way that could be seen as pressure or intimidation?
5️⃣ Settlement and civil exposure
- Has the complainant, or their lawyer, raised a specific settlement amount?
- Have you considered whether a written apology or public correction could support settlement?
- Are you aware a civil damages suit could proceed even if the criminal case is dropped?
- Is there a deadline (such as a court date) by which withdrawal of the complaint would need to happen?
